DEBATE, MANIFESTATIONS, AND
NEWS IN THE PRESS AND INTERNET ETC. - ON VOL. 1

¤

The Genesis Letters, Public and Private
online Library, February 2002 - comment on chapters of
vol.1:

Looking outside of biblical traditions

New Research on Moses: Fascination research done by a Danish scholar into
the historical Moses. While I may not necessarily concur with some of Ove
von Spaeth's conclusions regarding the religion's aspects of Moses, I find
his historical research into who Moses was to be fascinating and possible
very accurate.
In the very least, human
flesh is put upon Moses by looking outside of biblical traditions to place
him in a wide historical setting.

It is with a great pleasure I have read the first two books about Moses - and
of course I find that there is too long time between the publications. I am a
blacksmith, and for 30 years travelling to Egypt has been a dream of mine; I was
fortunate enough to have read your first book prior to my trip.
I have always thought
that the Egyptian world of gods was difficult to access, but your book helped me
to get the general idea.
I believe that you answer
your critics and all of us who write to you decently. And I find it "groovy" -
to use a modern phrase - that you have been able to provoke - scare - the
established theological elite so much. Thank you - they can only learn!

... a put-out of a
small royal child on the river was most probably a cultic ritual or a mystic
play, as the Danish researcher Ove von Spaeth very splendid describes it [Note
7]. According to the myth the kings as infants came sailing in reed-boat s... -
granted by the god or gods.
The kings themselves were
partly or entirely divine. When their life ended they again left the world
sailing in reed-boats, back to the gods. First after that their dead bodies were
buried. Such cultic scenes went on in Mesopotamia and especially in Egypt, but
also in a great part of the ancient world. - Note 7: Ove von Spaeth: Attentatet
på Moses, vol. 1, http://www.moses-egypt.net

Let us look a little closer at this Moses, then. We know that in Christianity
the "Christ" is the son of God. Despite Freud's inclination to see Moses as a
father figure in the classical psychoanalytical manner, later replaced by the
notion of God the son, we would be justified after reading the above to wonder
whether Moses might be the son of someone significant himself.
The answer to this
question is positively astonishing, and one is amazed that even Higgins managed
to miss it, as did Freud, who also managed to miss the affiliation of the family
of Joseph with a certain religious organization in Egypt. I have created a small
family tree to display the relationships among the main Hebrew and related
characters in this analysis. As you can see immediately, the father of Moses is
Amram.
In all fairness, I see
that a certain Ove von Spaeth, author of a Swedish work translated as
Assassinating Moses, has made the following identification already, but it is
rather obvious once one realizes the avataric nature of the original Moses. For
Amram would appear to be an abbreviation of Amun-Re in the manner one finds,
peculiarly enough, the names of the cities of Eastern Europe shortened in the
language of Eastern Yiddish.
And "Sir Flinders
Petrie," as quoted by Robert Graves in The White Goddess, "holds that Moses is
an Egyptian word meaning 'unfathered son of a princess.'" This story becomes
more familiar by the moment.

It is exciting to witness the special shock you have caused. Your books are
absorbing and brilliant, and I am one of your admirers. Apart from your actual
message the very books are a joy - both graphically and how they are
communicated - and rhetorically. They are very well put together - and so well
composed in the presenting.
Archaeology and Middle
East history are occupying me very much and I feel quite convinced that you are
right. What an impressive work - about logically correct coherences. It is very
good, and I mean every word. And if you should like so you are welcome to use
them. I do look forward to reading your next volume - will it soon be published?

According to the Bible a daughter of a pharaoh found Moses among the reeds
and took care of him. However... Moses was not of Jewish descent. In reality he
was a biological son of the later so famous Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut (ca. 1500
BC) and was hereby heir to the Egyptian throne - as
being claimed by a controversial historian.

Danish
historian
Ove von Spaeth presents the
controversial theory that Hatshepsut is identical to the pharaoh's daughter who in
the Bible's account finds the infant Moses in a basket on the River Nile.
According to the historian in question Moses was of non-Jewish ancestry - he was
Hatshepsut's biological son and thus a successor to the throne of all Egypt.

The biblical text
concerning Moses found on the River Nile presents in actual fact an Egyptian
description about a typical ceremony for new-born royal children. The Bible's
account about a Jewish child to be taken care of by the Egyptian pharaonic family was,
according to von Spaeth,
a later reconstruction in which the later Jews had omitted (in the Bible, but
not in the Rabbinical Writings) important details about Moses' Egyptian
background only to make him fit in with a Jewish context.
That Moses never became
pharaoh was due to Hatshepsut's successor, Tuthmosis III, who was behind a plot
making Moses expelled from Egypt - this was published in antiquity already by
Church historian Eusebius (275-339 AD). When Tuthmosis III after the dead of Hatshepsut destroyed most of the memories of her, he also succeeded to rub out
Moses of the history of Egypt.

There is a clue to Moses and Nibiru when you study old texts. There was a
very unusual astrological conjunktion three years before his birth. -
Read here under "Is it possibel to use astronomy to date the birth of Moses:
http://www.moses-egypt.net/book1/moses1-cap1_en.asp

According to this information, Moses was born in 1534 BC.- I believe it was
the forces of Nibiru that made the sun stand still in the sky and split the sea
(from the Old Testament.)

And if some religious fanatics say, "-God did it" then I always answer: God,
Allah created Nibiru, that always ends the discussion ;-)
If Nibiru is here in 2012 I just test to add 2012+1534 - 60 (the age of Moses
when they crossed the sea during the exodus 60 years, my assumtion)

"... Also, I am wildly impressed
by the book's bibliography. Incidentally,
I have looked at some responses regarding the contents of "The Suppressed
Record" and I must say that the
picture of Egyptology at certain universities in these years is embarrassing and
amazing, but there are some similar cases concerning also other study lines and
other universities. ... "

Erik Dal, Dr.Phil. in literature, Chief Librarian at the
Royal Danish National Library, President of the Danish Language and
Literature Society, former President of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, - (1.Apr.1)

¤

Letter, 16 November 1999 - comment:

A paradigm shift in biblical research?

It has been extremely interesting and generally convincing reading - although
I do not have the qualifications for a scrutinizing in detail.

But if your thesis is
really as correct as it appears this would be a point of a real paradigm shift
within the Old Testament research, and in many places you will not be a popular
figure because of that. I wish you best possible progress and I look forward to
reading the next release.

In particular two names may be the first thought to most people, when "the
Bible" is mentioned, i.e. Moses and Jesus. Especially via the famous "Law of
Moses" - Moses is the essence of the Old Testament (although many others should
be mentioned), and Jesus is personifying the New Testament.
Ove von Spaeth has done a
remarkable world-class research work on Moses, the immensely strong archetype
and cultural figure in the mind of the western world. His books deal with quite
a number of very unorthodox questions, e.g. esoteric-religious insight in Egypt.

With his detailed insight
in a number of interdisciplinary lines and his rare ability to create syntheses,
Ove von Spaeth is able to prove connections establishing a new comprehensive
picture of Moses.
With a firm base in
existing facts "he writes the history" and extends conspicuously the perspective
on the introduction to the religion and the cultural impulse which so thoroughly
has formed us in these latitudes. This is a welcome and needed renewal of our
ideas about central impulses as to our European cultural cradle.

It is amazing that a
number of critics have reacted quite violently without being able to produce a
serious argumentation. It may be that this is a question about "sacred cows"
simply required to be untouched and unspoken about. Perhaps even emphasized by
the fact that Ove von Spaeth is an autodidact researcher, and thus not fitting
into the row of recognized learned researchers.
Considering what a new
researcher will have to put up with, I am, in this connection, frankly amazed
that in 21st century this is where we stand. I can only say that the writer of
book-series on Moses is acting exactly the way a real researcher should. Because
Ove von Spaeth replies kindly to critics with factual and supporting comments,
insisting on and appealing to substantiating action and counter-action instead
of encouraging unproductive, emotional scolding.

Irrespective of reactions
from certain representatives of the research élite, which for some time may try
to block for testing of the discoveries and for factual challenges to take new
roads, Ove von Spaeth's works about Moses will no doubt be favoured by time.
What a single example sets today will later encourage many - as is well known.

It is a great
pleasure for me to have the opportunity to recommend to the readers a close
acquaintance with Ove von Spaeth, the Researcher and Writer. Ove von Spaeth
belongs to a minor circle of persons, who have distinguished themselves through
history by being able to make use of their eminent abilities and without being
dependent of our society's established hierarchic structures and habitual
thinking.
Ove von Spaeth's
research is inter-disciplinary and is being carried out in borderlands, for
instance between Humanities (as spiritual studies) and natural science. This
area represents an insatiable demand for comparative and cross-border
research. However, the area is a total desert in respect of established
researchers' research.
Not only has Ove von
Spaeth devoted his life to the research and communication of his discoveries in
this field - he has also been able to handle the task to such a degree where his
research is bound to result in occupying an important position in history.

Erling Haagensen, Writer and Film Director, Member of Danish Film Directors, - www.merling.dk -
(17.Nov.2004)

¤

Jewish National & University Library, The
Hebrew University of Jerusalem - NNL - 1999

- Ove von Spaeth: "The
Suppressed Record. - Moses' Unknown Egyptian Background" ... An evaluated
analysis of re-discovered ancient tradition reveals that the Bible's greatest
prophet was born as a prospective heir to the Egyptian throne - but enemies at
court and at the priesthood obstructed his chances of becoming pharaoh ...
Concerning the person Moses and his era - and based on inter-disciplinary
studies into history, archaeology, religious history, and ancient astronomy.

Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dept. of Development Aid,
Danida,
www.u-web.dk/udenrigsministeriet.htm - (Aug.1999 & Oct.2001), includes the
book in official recording, by librarian Lise Klavsen.
- Also, The Educational Service Centre in Copenhagen,
http://www.udviklingstal.dk/l-egypten.htm -
pointing out the book as recommended literature on Egypt for official use by
the Basic School of Development Aid Experts. The description is selected
from the Danbif database, thus presented: Moses, & Egypten, & Bible studies.
- Also, official recording of the work in the "Figures of Developing
Countries for the Basic School, Market Profile of Egypt" from the Danish
Embassy, Cairo 1998/1999, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Publications,
ISSN 1398-7887, 30 cm, illstr., annual publication. - (Aug.1999 &
Oct.2001)

¤

Reader's mail, 26 July 1999 -
comment:

The most difficult material made legible

Concerning your 5 books, so I have now truly got a strong impression of the
enormous amount of work you've been through, and how extensive your project is.

For now, I have read "The
Suppressed Record", Book 1 of your series, and I was completely bowled over.
What a book you have written. A historical 'crime novel' with such a convincing
a presentation of the facts that all your claims will be purchased. You make it
so compelling that I predict you to be world famous in a few years.

Let me also say that
you write excellent well, you make the most difficult material easy to read so
that one flows through the book in a state of ecstasy by the good wording.
Superb. Your preparation for this book - yes, how many lives have you lived to
be wise in as many languages and history? The great systematist has now come
forward and, indeed, how I am looking forward to the next books.

My wife and I have at
some times been on the historical sites in Luxor and has always been fascinated
by Hatshepsut - without a moment to think of Moses as her son. You have done it
so well - giving me a great experience that I am grateful for all your many
sound facts and the interesting history.

Investigating the historical Moses, this book contains a vast amount of
information from a vide variety of sources, utilizing research into Hebrew,
Egyptian and other contemporary languages ...
www.moses-egypt.net/book1/moses1-reviews_en.asp

From the introductions of Vol.1 of the
book-series on Moses - spring 1999:

Interdisciplinary

"... This work is
interdisciplinary to an exceptional degree, based on extensive and thorough
studies within history, theology, archaeology, and history of religion as well
as history of astronomy... with zeal and flair Ove von Spaeth has collected
evidence from widely different sources to support his main thesis regarding
Moses and his status and place in history ..."
"... As a historian of
astronomy I find the basic assumption of a certain planetary constellation in
1537 BC worth testing in relation to biblical research, Egyptology, archaeology
as well as general history ... Ove von Spaeth has chosen a vivid style in order
to reach a wider circle of readers than mere specialists ...".

Kristian Peder Moesgaard, D.Sc., Professor, History of Science
Department, Aarhus University; - Director of the Steno Museum, Danish
National Museum for the History of Science, Aarhus

¤

Thirax, - Index, editorial introduction
(April 2003) - info:

Journey of Discovery

In addition to the activities of writing books, Ove von Spaeth have made
science-cultural journalistic work - from studios both in Denmark and through
the many years of living abroad as well as study tours and other kinds of
discovery journeys to all continents. Articles and features have especially been
about astronomy, culture and religion history, myth research, and anthropology.
- Text number: 10. Moses - A genius of the highest order. &:
5. Tracing Moses' Heritage from Egypt.

Introductions of Vol. 1 of the book-series Assassinating Moseswww.moses-egypt.net/book1/moses1-introduc_en.asp :
"... Based on the exact information of the Rabbinical
Writings it is possible to sustain that in 1534 BC (in February) the Daughter of
Pharaoh gave birth to Moses. This time is consistent with the coronation of
Hatshepsut the year before, when this young daughter of Tuthmosis I through this
became her father's co-regent with official title as Pharaoh's
Daughter! ...

... When the Egyptian
identity of Moses was officially cancelled, he was made "non-existing" in his
native country of Egypt, all of which is another reason for the apparently
disappeared traces of Moses in the very country of Egypt. Some traces which
still might be remaining, have frequently been ignored, especially because the
Moses narrative mainly has been considered on he basis of later times'
interpretation of the biblical texts instead of on an Egyptian point of view.
..."
Cf.
www.moses-egypt.net/book1/moses1-introduc_en.asp

The book on MOSES ("The Suppressed Record"), - this book is, in my opinion, a
very interesting observations about the phenomenon of MOSES. I know of course
some of the classic handed over texts, but also, for example, "Tables of the
Law" ("Das Gesetz") by Thomas Mann.
I am not efficient to
assess the degree of the historic quality of this book, however, it is a very
interesting theory which Ove von Spaeth has developed and it is a book you read
with great excitement.
For myself, I look
forward with great expectations to the promised next 4 volumes.

Danish Association for the History of
Religion, Spring 2002 -
on reviews:

History of Religion

DAHR:
Danish Association for the History of Religion.
The DAHR is a society of scholars and teachers of religion, as well as others
with an academic interest in religion and the historical study of religions.
DAHR was founded in 1982.
DAHR is affiliated with the International Association for the History of
Religions (IAHR) as well as the European Association for the Study of Religions
(EASR).
_

Assassinating Moses, Vol. 1: Reviews- Moses was not a Hebrew, he was
Egyptian, probably his name was Tuth-mosis, and he was the genuine child of
Hatshepsut, the daughter of the former pharaoh, and he was the heir to the
throne in the vast Egyptian kingdom. - Lepsius claimed that Moses was
contemporary with Pharaoh Ramses II around 1500 B.C. However, when it was later
discovered that Ramses II was probably living in 1200, the dating of Moses was
also removed to 1200, because in the meantime the anticipation of the time of
the two persons being the same had become evident. - 1509-1487 B.C. This person, "the
daughter of Pharaoh" is in the von Spaeth analysis being the mother of Moses
and, thus, not his adoptive mother, as the Old Testament is suggesting. www.moses-egypt.net/book1/moses1-reviews_en.asp (5094 words)

-
Other credits include NationMaster.com online database and visualisation
tool for comparing countries - featured in The New York Times, CNN, BBC -
recommended by the Harvard Business School and the American Library
Association.

¤

Statement, 7 January 2000 - info:

Contradicting predominant theological trends

"... (Concerning vol.
1:) - Rarely has the dating been so clearly defined or the implications so fully
underpinned in such meticulous detail. - A presentation of detailed arguments
and painstaking analyses that contradict predominant theological trends. - An
exceptional amount of prestige is at stake here, because if Ove von Spaeth is
correct in the main, many years of dominant theological perceptions in this
field will simple fall like dominoes. ... will encourage new breakthroughs and
corrections for a long time to come ...".

As a long-term reader of Kristeligt Dagblad (daily) I must express surprise
concerning a total lack of reviewing or mentioning of the researcher Ove von
Spaeths innovative work "The Suppressed Record" (Assassinating Moses, vol. I)
now even 5 months after the release from C.A. Reitzel publishers. - I have read
several letters on this complaint in this newspaper but in the rest of the main
newspapers all over the country the book has attracted great furore and debate.

Many readers of the
present newspaper subscribe to no other newspaper, so why have these readers had
no information about the book? Especially the Kristeligt Dagblad as being known
for its sphere of interest concerning religion should, first of all, have been
the right and natural forum. - The book is presenting affirmative historical
evidence of the core of the biblical Moses narrative. But it seems here to have
come across the modern theology's hypothesis that the old Bible just consists of
myths invented only 300 years BC by the priests who wanted fabricate a glorious
Jewish past.

So, instead of merely
obliging that branch of theology by ignoring the book now, the newspaper could
probably also serve its readers with the necessary press information? I am
otherwise content with the newspaper but this arrangement I simply do not
understand.

(The above letter was refused by
the Kristeligt Dagblad. Undersigned sent it for orientation to Ove von
Spaeth and allowed him to publish it).

¤

Aton Cultural Travels, egyptenrejser.dk, 7
August 2004 - Newsletter:

An exceptional research - re-released

Information - News on the relevant literature:
Ove von Spaeth's book:
"The Suppressed Record. - Moses' Unknown Egyptian Background", which is
the first volume in the series on "Assassinating Moses", is now updated, revised
and reprinted!

The book's contents are
intriguing and non-traditional materials and are here for the first time brought
together and presented as an entirety. ""The Suppressed Record" reveals a
tumbling and disguised attack on Moses - and that his life and position were
surprisingly different than previously thought. The necessary re-examination of
rediscovered history reveals the greatest biblical prophet as originally bound
to sit on the Egyptian throne.

Handed over, rare
accounts on Moses are shown at their places in Egyptian history, archaeology,
and anthropology in relation to the Bible and in the Rabbinical Writings
(Talmud) and by the writers of Antiquity. - Re-finds of astronomical data, now
objectively verified on the basis of modern scientific astronomy, contributes to
the precise dating. Knowledge of Moses' status and age - as a previous lack of
biblical and historical knowledge had developed confusion about - can now be
restored.

More biblical puzzles
will therefore be provided the opportunity to find their solution. An
exceptional research can be experienced here in the form of living history where
the reader can "follow sources" all the time staying on safe ground. See
info: www.moses-egypt.net

Magnificent with the re-publication of Volume 1. It is probably also the best
compliment to achieve. The work has thus managed to survive the acidic and
ignorant and uninterested reviewers.
And then we can
also be pleased on C.A. Reitzel's behalf - this publisher can afford to be proud
of the author! This re-printing will not pass without marking a trace through
the newspapers' editorial offices. - A reprint of a work of this kind is a
rarity which in itself is worth to be mentioned in public.

Subject: The start of the first volume of "Assassinating Moses".
"... The executioner's
stroke slashes through the air - but stops abruptly an inch from the victim's
skull. At the last moment, the deadly blow is arrested, the weapon touching - but not injuring. Death is a hairsbreadth away. The victim is shocked ...
appalled. He, who was to have reigned as king over his people, instead has had
his identity entirely obliterated by this symbolic execution. Hereafter he is to
have no official existence. Remarkably, this dramatic event will lead him to
become "ruler" over another nation ... a nation which as yet, does not exist.
..."

This shows art and depths
from the start - and my hair stood on end. - I have bought all the books.
Looking forward to continuing reading; tense expectations.
Regards,

:: OvS's reply. Calculations objectively
performed by modern astronomical methods and based on data in the ancient
text, can show that Moses was born February 8, 1534 BC. And that he died
just before Easter, 1415 BC. All numbers here being transposed into
Gregorian calendar style.
NOTE: The Gregorian
calendar includes new-years at January 1, a custom starting only 250-400
years ago (replacing old-style new-year at March 21); - and in my research
the years are counted accordingly to normal tradition by historians: without
"year 0" (contrary to an astronomical year-counting which includes a year
zero, resulting e.g. the astronomical counted year 1534 BC to be 1533 BC). Ove von Spaeth

¤

Newsgroups.science.history.teology.dk, - 25.
October 1999 - info:

Moses - history or myth?

A review of Ove von Spaeth's book 'The Suppressed Record' which I present here ... because of the interest it has been creating. (The review was made
directly in English by the American professor who can read in Danish).

"... What makes ... the tale believable is the extent to which von Spaeth has
been able to assimilate a vast amount of information from a wide variety of
sources, utilizing research into Hebrew, Egyptian and other contemporary
language documents ..."
"... This handsome volume
... anyone with a non-specialist interest in these far-off times from a religious or historical perspective will enjoy having this volume at hand. -
Deserves an English translation so that it can be appreciated and argued about
by a broad international audience ...".
(Cf. the entire text:
New Focus on the
Life of Moses )

Concerning your book "The Suppressed Record", - first I want to say thanks for a
very enlightening book.
As can be red at many
places in the book much of the material and the way of thinking in Egypt 3,500
years ago are still to be found - for instance at the Freemasons. The book has
contributed to my understanding to a higher degree of the ideas handed over...
up to our time.
I wish you continuing good luck with the great work. I am a devoted buyer of
the book-series. Many greetings and respect from:

Bo Kristensen, Havevang 23, 4300 Roskilde - (21.Oct.2000)

¤

:: OvS's reply. How to trace Mystery Cults
of Egypt - and Later Influence? As an introductory supplement the following
books can be recommended - although they have no immediate sources about the
beginning of the Masonic activities. Yet, the writer of the Moses series -
with observed neutrality - suggesting the following books to be of
recommendable quality:
For instance, among older
works of relevance are those by C.W. Leadbeater, the Theosophist. Related and
connected information can be found in a book by Christopher McIntosh, i.e.
"The Rosicrucians".
Among English classics is
"The Rosicrucian Enlightenment" by the great researcher Frances A. Yates
(Routhledge & Keagan Paul, London 1972); and "Who was Hiram Abiff" by J.S.M.
Ward (Baskerville Press, London, 1925)
Among later books or
reprints, Leadbeater's "Freemasonry and its Ancient Rites" (Gramercy Books,
New York) was published in 1998. "The Hiram Key" by Christopher Knight &
Robert Lomas (Barnes & Noble, New York, 1996) should also be mentioned. In
addition, allow me in this respect also to point to Ove von Spaeth's "The
Secret Religion" (the vol. 4 of the series "Assassinating Moses").

Ove von Spaeth

¤

Letter, 20th March 2006 - question:

What about the book?

What about the book. I'm interested in the books of
von Spaeth. Is there yet any editorial interested in the book? If there is, when
and how can I contact for a copy?
Thanks. Ramon from Puerto
Rico, la isla del encanto.

:: OvS's reply. Thanks for your
interest. Concerning Vol. 1: in the present months a translation into English is
about being finished. A publisher then must take over. Technically the book
could be published within this year. We may contact you when a publishing date is being
more precisely known. Ove von Spaeth

¤

Discussiongroup, TheologyWeb, 25 February 2007 -
debate:

Moses in the care of the Egyptians

www.theologyweb.com
- Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb - theology debate with a serious dose of
fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative
discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and
discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who
is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the
fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.
_

::
It also doesn't say that his diaper was changed. So are we to assume that
Moses went around with soiled nappies all that time?
_

Maybe we are!! And it doesn't say what he had to eat for his first meal,
maybe he didn't eat?? - What did Moses do with his day when he was in the care
of the Egyptians??
The point you miss is
that some very simple and unnecessary things WERE recorded, while important
things were not. You also assume that the bible is something more than fiction,
yet cannot prove it isn't. - And you want me to prove it is. Where would you
like me to start??
The lack of ANY
historical evidence regarding large numbers of the biblical characters perhaps??
- It's a very cleverly written book as it uses some real people as characters
and some fictional. - I'm not actually sure if that process has ever repeated
itself since the writing of the bible. - The real characters give us the
historical evidence of existence and that makes it very hard to work out who the
fictional ones are.
_

::
I suppose you missed the part where his mother NURSED him after the Princess
picked him out of the river...and Hebrew kids were nursed for longer than
just a few months.
_

And to what age did she nurse him??
_

::
Stories of a new-born child found in a boat floating down the River
Euphrates were already known from Babylon almost a millennium before Moses'
time, where a boy-child - later to become the king named Sargon (Sargon I) -
was found, brought to the king's palace and given a high education; (cf.
Appendix 1). According to his so-called 'autobiographical' record, this
child (Sargon) in the rush boat was the son of the king's daughter. No foreign child of low birth could have obtained such a significant education
followed by a royal career. Thus, it must have been a thoroughly planned
happening intended for a child of royal origins. Source: -
http://www.moses-egypt.net/book1/moses1-cap2_en.asp
_

The more I look, the more I dig up. Looks like the story of Moses was just
another rehash of an earlier myth. Figures.
_

::
Umm yes they have. Jesus is mentioned in Josephus. King Ahab is mentioned in
secular Syrian records. Mention is made of David in some recently discovered
artifacts associated with the Aramean conquest of Israel.
_

You DID see the word MOST, didn't you??
One thing about the bible
that is unusual is it's usage of both real and fictional people. There are
enough real ones to make the fictional ones seem real. The kings and queens and
certain other characters play historical roles as leaders, while the lesser
characters usually appear to be the fictional ones. By lesser, I mean poorer,
more humble. It almost gives the impression of the kings of the time demanding
their scribes write a grand novel about them, capturing their magnificence while
ruling over some fictitious pauper.

-
So Moshe, born according to v. Spaeth in 1534, was the historical
Senenmut. It seems like that is where Spaeth is headed from what little of his
website I have read? There is at least one orthodox rabbi I am aware of who
would agree about the identities (not the dates) and who has published his ideas
on this.

-
ML: It could be where he's headed. I haven't read
v.S.'s book but the
first three chapters are available at that website. He's already made it plain,
from what I can tell, that he thinks Hatshepsut must have been "pharaoh's
daughter". Of course, Hatshepsut is the most famous gal of the dynasty, next to
Nefertiti, but there were a lot of other "pharaoh's daughters" included in that
dynasty, not quite so prominent.
Funny thing, though,
among the family of Thutmose I, including sons Thutmose, Amenmose and Wadjmose,
there was a certain mysterious "Ramose"--at least according to J. Tyldesly. But
I don't know anything about him. Also rather oddly, in that famous tomb scene
called "Lords of the West", depicting defunct kings, queens and princes, there
is a certain prince whose name "seems" to be Ramose and he sits there rather
prettily holding a flower to his nose. What Ramose that could be nobody knows or
why he was so famous as to be included in that scene.
Senenmut? I don't know
how Hatshepsut could have adopted him as a child as all signs seem to point to
the notion that he was older than she--depicted as aged and wrinkled on some
informal portraits from around Year 7. I don't have the actual URL right now,
but anyone who wants to go to my homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/marianne.html
can read about Senenmut and see portraits of him there.
Anyway, I thought I knew
a lot of tidbits from rabbinical lterature, midrashim, but that one item from
Rabbi Abrabanel had escaped me about what was going on in the realm of Pisces
around the time Moses was born.

-
Oh--and BTW, in my own work, "The Exodus Chronicles: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors
from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" [2003] I also proposed Senenmut as a candidate for "Moses"--but that was before I'd ever heard
of von Spaeth or became rather convinced that a certain mummy from
the Deir el Bahari royal cache "Unknown Man C" might be Senenmut [originally
proposed by someone else, not me]. The mummy is Senenmut, then no Moses.
Senenmut, in that case, died right where he was born--which was at Armant, near
Thebes.
For more oddity, Arthur
Weigall, famed antiquities guy in Egypt in the early part of the 20th Century,
claimed the tradition in the Armant of his time was that Moses *had* been born
there. However, ancient historians vow that he was a "prince of Heliopolis" or a
priest there [ancient "iwnw", the "On" of the Bible]. Heliopolis is a very long
ride from Thebes.
Another ancient writer
maintained the original name of Moses should have been "Yoachim" or "God has
raised". This he may have obtained from another author of antiquity who claimed
the original name of Moses was "Tisithen", an obscure Egyptian moniker, the
first element of which can only be "Tsi", meaning "raise". Well...you
know...strange things happen with all this.
If Senenmut was a
Hebrew--what is his name translated into that language? "Achim" of
course! sn n[y] mwt means "brother of Mut" [the goddess] but the
name Mut merely means "mother". It's the word for mother and there
is no other in the Egyptian language. Just to illustrate how the actual
pronunciation of Egyptian differed from how it was written and how we
transliterate it, the way Senenmut's name should have been spoken was something
like "Sonnymao".

-
You know, this is pretty wild. That date for the birth of Moses works out every
time. The Torah says that Moses didn't return to Egypt until he was 80 "because
all who had sought his life were dead". 80 years from 1534 comes to 1454, around
the time that Amenhotep II received the kingship after T III died. With 1570 as
his starting point for the dynasty, P. Clayton gets 1453 as the assession date
for A II. That's just a year off--or maybe not even that, depending upon when A
II was actually crowned, the civil date vis a vis the New Year, whatever.
Then the Torah says the
Hebrews left--430 years after the first ones had come to live in Egypt. That
brings us back to 1884 BCE, the time of Amenemhat II and Senusret II. Clayton
says of this era, "There is also an apparent increase at this time in the number
of Levantine names recorded in Egypt, presumably belonging to those brought in
as domestic servants."
Amenhotep II is generally
regarded, in retrospect, as a very cruel man, worse than his father. He didn't
even have the intellectual leanings of T III to redeem him. But, did he drown in
the sea as soon as he became king? Of course not. He was only about 18 when he
succeeded and reigned for many years. However, there is something else. One of
the last acts, apparently, of the vizier Rekhmire, was the installation of A II on the throne. Rekhmire's family had served the royals for three generations,
ever since the grand-father, Amethu [also called "Ahmose", after the
"liberator" pharaoh] and his wife, TaAmethu, had risen to importance. The
names of these people means "foreigner".
Anyway, the man who
changed his name to Ahmose was a "governor of the town and vizier" under
Thutmose III and he had a tomb in the Theban necropolis, TT83--as did Rekhmire.
All of the sons of this Ahmose became very important men but, after Rekhmire,
the family served no more and there is no sign that Rekhmire was ever buried in
his own tomb, TT100.
Rekhmire was, apparently,
the final vizier of Thutmose III and one of the most moving texts from ancient
Egypt is in that tomb, evidently the words of TIII to Rekhmire, telling him how
important his role as vizier was to the people. But, after Rekhmire, no more
viziers from that family, even though Rekhmire had plenty of sons. Just a
coincidence? Who knows? But, in AE, eldest sons succeeded their fathers in their
offices whenever possible.

From the OmniKnow Site learn about: Over seven hundred
supercentenarians have been documented in history, and this is doubtless a
fraction of the number who have really lived, but the majority of claims to this
age one finds recorded do not have sufficient documentary support to be regarded
as validated. - This is slowly changing as those born after birth
registration was standardized in more countries and parts of countries attain
supercentenarian age.
For supercentenarians
known for anything other than their extreme age, see the centenarians article.
Here are a list of other particularly aged individuals. - Timeline of
oldest-recognized. Relevant Sites: Oldest person in the world:
... No. 141.
Moses & New Research / An interpretation of Moses
as a historical person and of the chronology of his era, based on
inter-scientifical research in history, Egyptology, theology, archaeology, and
historical astronomy ...
- http://www.moses-egypt.net/ -
http://omniknow.com/via.php?passing=www.moses-egypt.net/

I write to you to express my enthusiasm about your book "The Suppressed Record".
I am a Freemason. It is an Order with a quest - thus ongoing to find possible
answers concerning the great questions of life.
Your next books, not the
least the "Assassinating Moses"-series' vol. 4: "The
Secret Religion", are mentioned back in the "The Suppressed Record" to
contain exiting material also of interest for Freemasons - and I will very much
look forward to read this.
I should like to
know, how long time back we can trace the Freemasonic kind of activity and what
the background was in the historical view?
Greatest thanks to you
for your huge work all of which is really of profound inspiration for many
persons. Best wishes,

Peter Rixen, DK-3200 Helsinge -
(28.Sep.2000)

¤

:: OvS's reply. Is the Masonic history
rooted in the mystery cults of the Ancient Egypt? The ancient initiation
cults mentioned in my book-series on Moses have brought about different
questions from the readers, the questions about looking up relevant issues
within this huge area, and even requests about possible, cult related
guidance.
Again, it can be said
that such subjects are not in the focus of me as the writer, and I refrain
from authoritative insight in the subject. Nevertheless, the many books on
the history of Freemasons and e.g. about Rosicrucians may probably be of
interest and some help for the readers to look deeper into the subject, for
instance, with a new view on certain parts of the "spiritually" related
geometry as mentioned here:
Cf. also the presentation
of certain excerpts, also published in Ove von
Spaeth's web articles like "Pattern, Universe, and Ancient
Knowledge" and "The Knights Templar's Knowledge from Egypt - and Moses" - on
present web-site's
Zenith
files or at
http://www.thirax.dk.
It may also be mentioned,
that some of what an inquirer within the huge area in question possibly can
add to his/her knowledge, may be what the inquirer can find out by
himself/herself - as an individual task. In this field especially the
Egyptian inspiration may be a supplement with a fine perspective to the
subject. This to be an extension of what, for instance, the book-series on
Moses have pointed out also about Egyptian ancient mystery plays, ritual
traditions, and the spiritually based architecture.

Ove von Spaeth

¤

readers opinion - 12 August 2011 -
question:

On the authenticity and the similarities

Please excuse me for taking liberty of writing to you. My name is Mrs.
Rebecca Dan Ramrajkar from Mumbai, India. I admire your work, Mr. von Spaeth,
and have just one query.
I admire your research. I
enjoyed reading your 1st book of Assassinating Moses Series and I wish your
books are taken seriously and accepted by all.
Thanks for the interest and concern. When referring to The New Testament in my
book, I normally write about it intentionally as e.g. "...traditions as
mentioned In The New Testament ...", or the like, instead of claiming NT to be a
source of history precise in detail. However, also this kind of "source" -
which, of course, should not be taken literally - cannot be avoided because it
belongs to the cultural framework of ancient history.
Even though your books
have in-depth research and your valuable insights they will not be taken
seriously and considered as hearsay, if you give these references because New
Testament is nowhere near Old Testament in authenticity in spite of the faults
of deliberate omissions as you mentioned.
Also regarding the Indian
reference of Karna of Mahabharath it was not the tradition that was mentioned
when it was said his poor adoptive(childless) parents found him on the river.
That has as much value as saying they found him on the temple steps. Because
even though the queen who was his real mother saw to it that he was close by and
took the responsibility of his education, could not publicly own him.
Please do not take me
offensively I do not mean to, but this small change will make a lot difference
to your series and will be accepted by people who matter in these fields and not
just by small people like me. Looking forward to reading rest of the books. -
Thanks & Regards
Thanks & Regards,
Rebecca Dan Ramrajkar,
- Mumbai, India, Fr 12-08-2011 08:30, Rebecca.Ramrajkar@ -
KFA/BOM/Engineering
- (12.Aug.2011).
###

On the authenticity and the similarities, -
responseBy OVE VON SPAETHThanks for the interest and concern. When referring to The New Testament
in my book, I normally write about it intentionally as e.g. "... traditions
as mentioned in The New Testament ...", or the like, instead of claiming the New
Testament to be a source of history in precise detail. However, also this kind
of "source" - which, of course, should not be taken literally - cannot be
avoided because it belongs to the cultural framework of ancient history.
For instance, in the
Volume I's first chapter, I state: "... Within the portrait gallery of
characters in the Old Testament, this occurrence can be uniquely related to
Moses since he alone is known to be directly associated with a concrete
astronomical event. - A similar situation is next related in the New Testament
1,520 years later: here, too, some astrologers appeared, the "Magi", who, prior
to the birth of Jesus, informed the king (Herod) of a certain stellar
observation. Contrary to the case of Moses, unfortunately, this later
observation is further unspecified - thus it would be most difficult to use it
for astronomical dating. ..."
So, when did King Herod
carried out his census? It always took place in connection with taxations. Herod
is known for lowering the tax with 25 per cent in the year 14 BC. Around that
time there was a Roman governor Saturnius in Syria (in Tyros) and he had the
same name as another governor who was Quirinius' predecessor, approx. 10 years
later. The Bible's New Testament can fully correctly(!) be translated so that
its Greek text is pointing at either of them, i.e. two different pointers for a
time fixation.
The oldest Christian
calendars (Ethiopian and Armenian) go back to approx. year 10 BC.
Stars and myths and
Jesus' birth: it was not a matter of a conjunction of the planets Jupiter
and Saturn in sky, because no ancient astronomer would ever mistake planetary
conjunctions for a star (as many have otherwise suggested for the so-called
"Star of Bethlehem"). And by the way, when determining the years of Jesus, most
historians and chronologists calculate - erroneously - the Roman emperor Tiberus
from the time of Augustus' death. But in fact, Tiberius was already emperor of
the eastern (!) part of the Roman Empire from the year 4 AD - he was Augustus'
co-regent, and they are depicted together on Roman coins from that time.
So, when I write that
Jesus was born 1520 years after the birth of Moses, it is correctly fitting the
factual census in the year 14 BC.
(Cf. also my mail on the
subject: "Stars and Myths for Jesus' birth")

The episode mentioned
about Karna is in the Mahabharata: Karna was supposedly conceived by Kunti
through her union with the 'Sun-god'. The myth is that she was the lovely
daughter of a king and was bathing in a river. The Sun-God saw her and fell in
love. She united with him and conceived Karna.
However, because she was
supposed to be a virgin, she put him in a reed-basket and set him afloat.
She later married a king
and conceived the five sons known as the Pandava princes - Arjuna of the Gita is
best known. - Karna was brought up in the forest and later took initiation from
a Brahmin priest. The Brahmin found out that Karna was a 'kshtriya' by caste and
not a Brahmin because he was too 'hot-blooded'!? He cursed him saying that his
warrior's weapons would not help him in his real moment of need. This was true
in the battle-field when Arjuna kills Karna at a critical moment. The sun has
set in the battle-field and Karna is vulnerable.
In fact, Karna is
destructed by his half-brother as was Moses by his royal 'half-brother', the
later Pharaoh Thutmosis III. The half-brother motif with princess, river 'boat',
and killing is repeated with Romulus and Remus - and the killing only, with the
Bible's Cain and his half-brother Abel (as according to the Rabbinical Writings
the mother of Cain was not Eve but Lilith). The custom of 'the chosen one'
floating on the river was also practised among the high lamas in Tibet.
Whether the mother was a
virgin at first or not, was - like several other single details - not of the
greatest significance. It was the active participating in the concept of this
pattern, which was of importance. OvS, -
www.moses-egypt.net - (20.Aug.2011).

¤

distribution-moraff.com - 10
February 2002 - comment:

The three chapters - and the Queen Mother

Please do not hesitate at all to ask me any questions on Hebrew traditions
that might help further your own study. I shall be glad to trade and compare
notes and opinions with you. For example - I just completed two weeks of
research into exactly what the Ethiopian Church has (Ark of The Covenant -
http://goafrica.about.com/library/weekly/aa270700a.htm
)

From your three chapters
(of the Volume 1, at your book's web-site) it is apparent that Hatshepsut was to
become the Queen Mother of Egypt. I imagine that a daughter or wife of the
Pharaoh, if she did not yet have a son or if the current Pharaoh died and her
son was too young to serve yet... she could be called "Pharaoh" herself in
virtue of carrying the seed of the next son to be Pharaoh or acting she was
considered and Pharaoh until her son was old enough to ascend the throne. Do you
think that fits?
In the Hebrew traditions
(and I am sure they were quite similar if not the same) the King (let us say
King David for the sake of a name) would appoint one son from among his many
sons - to be the next king, either directly or through a chosen wife. King David
chose Bathsheba as the next Queen Mother which would mean that she would become
Queen Mother of Israel when her son (Solomon) ascended the throne. The official
Queen of Israel was always the mother of the king, not his wife. However the
mother could be called 'Queen' already even while married to the current king
because, being the only candidate for Queen - she would be treated like one
already.
The term 'first-born' in
the Hebrew means more like 'first place' in a beauty contest. The 'best fruit'
(often also the first fruits of harvest but not necessarily). It means the most
like the ideal. Nathan was first born in time while Solomon was tenth born in
time (I think tenth). In any event... once Bathsheba was chosen to be the next
Queen Mother she was already called "Queen" in virtue of her appointment as she
was the only 'candidate. When David died and Solomon ascended the throne
Bathsheba that is when she became the actual and official Queen Mother.

As you can see - what you
write about Moses (and Hatshepsut) makes every sense in the world to me. You
have hit the nail on the head.
Any way... I myself have
no problem reading your English translation. It is not a novel - it reads very
well for a serious study put into words most people can understand. It is not
too dry.
I wish you all the luck in the world because I want to read your work! Let me
know if you would like me to help you get published here in America.

I thoroughly enjoyed
the first book. I have maintained for some time that the Exodus was in the wrong
century. I've been at this for 20 years now, and the astronomical data is the
key. It would fill a 300 year hole in Egyptian history.
The most important thing,
in my opinion, was that it appears that Moses walks out of Egypt, the only man
in the world with all the old knowledge, which he then writes into the
Pentateuch in a mathematical code which would give us this knowledge...

From Antiquity a comprehensive number of sources are known - for
instance the ancient writers and the early Rabbinical text collections - which in connection with the material arriving from modern
archaeology have necessitated a new evaluation of Moses as a historical
figure with a long-range influence on posterity.
If we will open to this
knowledge and new orientation we shall be able to better understand many
circumstances in our history as being also a background for our present
culture and standards.

Competency or diffuse discontent

Through the ages, our history has been interpreted in widely different ways.
Once it was the Church which determined history view. Later it could be narrow
nationalism or dictators who dominated it. But even after the historical science
had better methods of research there were many trends where particular science
groups through their consensus decisions often could exert dictatorial views
concerning history.
But if certain groups can
announce that there can only be one - in particular their - interpretation of
history, history research is lusing not only its freedom but also its meaning
and even legitimacy. In that we do not any longer need more to uncover hidden
history's pages, ask new questions and in this way learn from history.

Let us take a look at
what kind of always help we can get from the survey methods. On the exact
analysis methods to be used by the research in question a short overview can be
given here for laymen. To the critical procedure when dealing with historical
subjects, distinctions are - althoughnot completely - made between especially
three main groups of historical sources, i.e. 1) written documentation (for instance inscriptions and
archive items); and 2) non-written documentation (normally called material
sources, for instance archaeological artifacts and dating); and 3) traditions (for instance still living traditions and
anthropological traces).
For extracting further
knowledge from the factors, three indirect ways can be used: 4) the negative argumentation (substantiated contradictive
testing); 5) the decision stemming from experience/suppositions; and6) the independent deduction by logics (a priori argumentation)
based solely on facts. All the means could be included with the process of
evaluation of sources.

All these methods were
already in the late 1800's established and published by the Belgian hagiographer
Charles de Smedt: "Principes de la critique de historique" (Liege, Paris 1884) -
and are used internationally, not the least in English speaking countries. They
are often in official use, also by the Catholic Church's academic biblical and
history research.
In addition, an important
condition (method) also being used in exact science is this: a theory actually
has to be self-consistent (i.e. not self-contradictive). Also here, however, the
"bible-myth" hypothesis is seen to be failing because of its refusal of any
Israelite invasion, whereas the archaeological finds of the Amarna letters
proving that the Hebrews/Israelites made an invasion and contributed around
1,400 BC with their action of destroying Jericho, which for hundreds of years
were not reconstructed.
By the fact that the city
of Jericho remained a ruin in 1200 BC the research schools in question are
placing the dating thus 200 years later than 1400 BC, and hereby maintain that
their "proof" of the myth-hypothesis is that the destruction of the city was not
possible (obviously not) at this late.

A more recently accepted
discipline is the "contra-factual history" writing, a method originally used by
Pascal for special hypotheses. However, this method is now seen "misunderstood"
by certain reviewers producing unrecognizable accounts from my book-series on
the historical Moses, but these professional reviewers should indeed abstain
from misquoting to such a great extent. In stead, their contribution should be
focused on:A) On these backgrounds it seems peculiar that documented
counter-argumentations have not been existing in the critical resistance against
the book-series' presentation of historic-factual relations. As a prior matter,
of course, questions for instance about to the degree of success of the use of
methods in the books, should have been asked, (whereas the very selection of
method would generally have been approved within of today's recognized and
defendable method of pluralism).B) Another important point is the fact that substantial founded
questions have not been asked about the correctness (or plausibility) or
incorrectness of data of the books. It should be evident that even in case of
possible less avoidable incorrectness in the latter (data), this does not
necessarily hit the first (the goals achieved).
But it is inappropriate,
for taking stand of any kind, only to criticize the books by mobilizing diffuse
discontent just the way this has happened. In short, the book-series on Moses
have not been evaluated according to scientific criteria by opponents from
certain theological schools of research and their from a non-scientific view
secure biblical myth-theories.

Unverified hypothesis used as an indisputable fact

Such a denial-of-problem (the myth-hypothesis) as being exposed here (see above)
should be met with a certain indulgence; - also because the presented
frustration of many of the critics in question should be understood by observing
an often seen practice of limiting focus to only the information usable to
maintain their own views - often done to satisfy alone what is expected.
To them it may present a
problem thus undesirable to find conditions not fitting into the previously
accepted patterns. To know what you are looking for is being limited by what you
know already. As pointed out by Karl Popper (1902-1994), the science philosopher:
observations are depending on theories; and furthermore that probability is a
poor target for the science.
Reality also shows that
openness and contact to controversial subjects (the less probably for the time
being) can be strengthening to scientific capacity. Whereas "traps of conception"
may easily appear, when somebody in fact believes to know more about their own
subjects, if they know less about the fields of others.
Of course the problem is
more serious when when it several times happens that information and arguments
are being pretended to be above debate, - like the concept called antinomies,
e.g. as the medieval clerical dogmas, which in principle should not be refuted.
But science must not work as a religious authority or a totalitarian inquisition
- if somebody should dare to commit 'the crime' of going against the established
opinion.

A closed system creates
monopolies of lines of approach and the evaluations. The books with new research
on Moses present controversial material - a fact that hardly can be non-existent,
so instead the messenger can be punished.
Typically, several
theological-academic reviewers have based their rejection of the data and
evidential material of the books by asserting that their maintaining that the
Bible (the Old Testament) consists of a number of myths without special
real-historical connections. It was a trendy hypothesis long ago, but through
the last hundred years many relating hypotheses were added upon it and having
caused people involved to refer to this indeed untenable construction's latest
off-springs or issues, as if these represented fully proven facts.
The unfortunate 'science
myth' - which without arguments was promoted from hypothesis to 'fact' - shows
an attitude of research policy almost favouring that past events have never took
place, but are existing as fiction only. From this stage of disrespecting the
ancient world's reports, a number of important findings are also being rejected
despite that both their very existence and the context are in the strongest
opposition to be subject for rejection - but they are destabilizing the
researchers' own myths.
This fact becomes even
more evident on the background of the thus now broader perspectives appearing
when the number of professional lines are being combined, for instance when
executed a s by the book-series on Moses.

When these books openly
and meticulously state the sources and clearly refer about which capacities have
been saying what, where, and how about exact findings and historical relations,
it is far from professionally relevant to continue - without the least
moderation - refusing it all as myths, especially when this myth-argumentation
never in the specific cases is seen supported by exact sources.
It has never been the
intension that scientists should appear as bureaucratic commissioners defending
themselves against perspectives of other kind. In that way they will never be
able to live up to scientific integrity and objectivity - thus because when, for
instance, two interpretations of the material seem possible, a serious and
honest evaluation should be an obligation.
Yet, the intension with
these examples is not to refute a number of factual errors, but only to present
a basic reason for their appearance: if some biblical texts may contain "myths"
it is obvious a mistake to let this be automatically valid in general for text
groups also of almost all the other periods of the Old Testament.

When provisional models are mistaken for facts

The Bible is the most scrutinized book in the world - and yet something goes
wrong. 400 years ago Steno (Niels Steensen) - although very religious - was able
to present two new scientific lines about the history of the planet separated
from the clerical edition of religion. He did it by the use of principles so
logical that it contributed as a decisive element in the basis of modern
scientific methods.
Thus, all the now
presented progresses through history of science - including examples of what
scientific views appropriately can be based on - have been known for a long
time. So there is actually no excuse for having not comprehended this and used
it in serious, scientific procedures - and also in alternative research results
of the biblical narratives on Moses.
Two ideas of attitude
seem to be preferred among research branches on the Bible: - either to be "over-careful"
in interpreting the findings. Actually, these reactions can here be seen due to
previous wrong tracks, where confidence to the biblical texts as real-history
material was lost in the 18-1900's due to those researchers' own lack of
knowledge. - Or, the findings are interpreted with such a narrow focus on the
mini-area locally, historically, and text-wise that the influence of the
surrounding world is systematically forgotten. Especially the majority of the
comprehensive and so especially important Egyptian influence is "neglected".

In science a critical
opposition in their own camp has to watch out for the Pavlovian conditioned
reflex deeply rooted in habitual opinion. Because - as for instance Jean-Paul
Sartre said about the idea of history: - "almost nothing changes as often as the
past", - i.e. later generations are creating their own image of history.
The related changing sets
of assumptions - called paradigms by Thomas Kuhn, the Physicist and Science
Historian - have for various generations been the operative basis for the
scientific work, through times. In a historical analysis Kuhn shows that
paradigms would typically cause a sort of "collective blindness" connected with
irrational motives.
However, by entire
generations within bible-related research it is again and again forgotten the
hypothetical background - e.g. the historical sequence, which covers the
biblical period where the Pentateuch of Moses should be placed, has no definite
image but only provisional models. Considerations, whatever reasonable they may
be, are not facts! Lack of knowledge has given rise to a vast number of
opinions. Opinions are frequently mistaken for knowledge.

To be tracing to the
widest extent the exact sources and informing data is, of course, a necessity.
When interpreting this material the disagreement will often arise - always so
necessary for science. When at this basic level new sources and data are being
dismissed or even not inspected, it is really regrettable.
And it is not unusual
that an expert-tyranny is sheltering themselves behind exorcise formula like "everybody
knows" or "it is obvious that" - referring to their present prioritized trends.
Actually, it requires quite some courage of one's conviction to go against this.
Especially the
book-series on Moses presents an unusually amount of sources, allowing the
readers to get acquainted with many different points of views and research
alternatives - including those they would not themselves have selected in
advance. Simultaneously it can even be avoided that these possibilities
beforehand will be subjected to a sentence of being expelled when competing with
the hitherto trends.

The material's richness,
possibilities, and presentation appears thus to have caused problematic
reactions by certain university people. Written on the official letter paper of
his Institute one of the academic teachers of the University of Copenhagen has
sent a hate letter to the personnel of the old publishing office (C.A. Reitzel)
of the book-series now presenting completely undocumented and defamatory
accusations against the books and their writer.
Also, by false disguising
as reviewers from a magazine, and hiding that the magazine did not existed any
longer, two other persons from the same (Carsten Niebuhr-) Institute tried -
with no luck - to perform a negative pressure on a group of scientific people,
who were supporting the book-series. Apparently, the considerable amount of
sources structuring the books was too hard to produce an argumentation against.
This ought to have suggested the unfortunate actors some humility by
experiencing thus that several angles of history can still teach us something.

Perspectives by new insights

If the trendsetters are always right, then how do we collect new knowledge?
Non-agreement is what drives science forward, so that we can grow wiser. Staying
one-eyed will limit, whereas two eyes present a stereo vision in several
dimensions on things. Phobia and opinions against those perspectives which are
going outside of the researchers' own myths about the historical Moses,
preventing these people's recognition and analysing of the right-under-our-eyes
historical reality of many old and new findings.
Thus, it is a fatal
blunder to use also later offshoots of the aforementioned and from the beginning
very insecure complex of hypothesis. Although the hypothesis was never able to
deliver any significant proof of either history or the justification for its
continuance, it is now seen used as a kind of verity parameter to evaluate the
reliability of the book-series on Moses.
This kind of "test" has
thus been executed erroneously by being based on definite incompetent premises
which, also, create considerable doubt as to whether the books at all have been
read by the reviewers in question - e.g. because the book-series do not maintain
that the Bible in its present edition is always historically correct.
Whereas the contents of
the books instead are referring to the fact that several parts of the oldest
biblical core prove surprisingly plausible and well-founded - and thoroughly
logically cohesive with a outstanding amount of findings and ancient sources.

American sociologist of
science Robert K. Merton (known in particular for the concepts of 'self-fulfilling
prophecy' and 'role model') established in 1942 certain rules (the Cudos-norm),
which have become widely used internationally in connection with the scientific
integrity. So, according to these, for instance, "disinterestedness" must be
adhered to as: research should be impartial!
But the aforementioned
narrow selective information has proved also to influence negatively on
textbooks and examination requirements. Within humanities an irrational scenario
is here to be seen, in which well-tested results from other lines of research
may be rejected or ignored by trusting own discourses as being representative of
reality.
The unfortunate imbalance
benefits judgmental ideas and arrogance of preferences, i.e. an unscholarly
manner which can obstruct the possibility of a real debate. Nevertheless,
reviews might be written without respect for special background knowledge. The
result will reflect such method, however.
And yet it can,
fortunately, also be seen that representatives of the new generation of
researchers may show the way to a break through the formerly often narrow,
academic limits. The way is being prepared for constructive, scientific work and
for turning disagreements into a positive tension as an incentive hopefully
leading to improvements. As for the research on Moses is concerned, it is
encouraging that also that many outsiders have proved a severe interest in this
project.

PART 2: New insights into a very important part of our history

Increased knowledge and research are constantly moving forward like
vessels on a perpetual stream of water, - some scientists cannot accept this
nature and will enable the vessels run aground. In the
new-orientating book-series, "Assassinating Moses", new and intriguing material
on the historical Moses is being presented by Ove von Spaeth. An intention of
the book publication is to contribute new insights into an important part of our
history and cultural background.

New insights on the historical Moses of ancient Egypt: Never ever before has
anybody written five books about this, not even a double volume book about
Moses. In the concerned five-volume work radical new-orientating historical
connections are presdented
Basic conditions are
sound - the reception of the books has been surrounded by a most positive
interest - and also some pyres. From the latter some mostly academic groups, the
books have often been met with a peculiar attitude and even an actual stage of
war - i.e. circumstances that have caused interested parts to put forward their
objections against the methods of the attackers.
Also based on the radical
impact raised by the books it has been concluded that the importance of the
books cannot be neglected. However, the unfounded warlike attitude has partly
preventing research from knowing the important, rare material, sources, and
findings.

Critical opposition
against new theses - and against old and tested theses as well - are science's
vital guidelines. Critical resistance can give a recharging and also push
forward our knowledge to increased recognition. And, concerning the unfortunate
actions from the aforementioned group, this article will illustrate essential
principles which have an effect on all of us when we are recipients of results
from the sciences.

Discussions - pros and cons

Initially, here a reply is presented to all the many kindly expressions about
the books - on the Internet and in many letters: thank you for your kind
interest and co-insight. Indeed, undeniably the material, which forms the
background in the information of the books, has proved to be very inspiring.
And now it appears that
the many new facts presented in the book-series - which certain groups (within
some university lines) chose to find provocative - eventually are giving even
further support to the material's already strong foothold. Note, however: from
the beginning and continuously, these books on Moses have not been aiming at
being provocative. And the text of the books is not at all intentionally
polemical.
Definitely, it has been a
positive experience that so many - especially also academic and university
people - have taken the opportunity to contradict a special kind of academic
behaviour (in a number of typical cases) towards the books. The following
presents some interesting features.

The question here is not,
of course, whether the books have been positively reviewed or not; that is not
essential in connection with the subject. What really matters, however, is the
fact that the books contain an unusually amount of research material collected
during 25 years - and also a bibliography on almost everything of 120 years'
informative publications on research on Moses, now concentrated in one edition
or collection. The Moses-series are thoroughly analyzing much material which was
so far neglected, and are pointing out a number of new, expanded historical
perspectives inevitably obtained by that.
Whether or not the very
results can be agreed upon on this background is rather unimportant taking into
consideration that now for the first time a major, coherent material is finally
presented and available to be used for further research. In future no explaining
may be acceptable for researching on the subject 'the historical Moses' without
focusing on these sources, being now generally easier accessible to such a broad
extent. Being without could be scientifically unserious.

Neglecting important sources

A qualified opposition is an essential part of the scientific process.
Nevertheless the priority of the material of the books has caused compulsive
disturbance and inexplicable anger despite the fact that the official research
so far had avoided to deal with the majority of the material.
The frequently
generalizing accusations against the books, e.g. in reviews and on the Internet,
make it difficult to know exactly which subjects may have caused some
molestation of academic researcher representatives in question, and for that
reason: a more professional way of expressing their disagreement with the books
should have been possible to deliver.
Sometimes we can
experience, for instance, after a politician have been warned against unwanted
consequences that he uses a certain cliché by saying, "I cannot imagine that";
this may reveal that this ability in fact is rather to be desired or
alternatively he should have hold another job. Nor can it be denied that similar
situations also are observed within science where solutions to problems there
have no unambiguous interpretation can be experienced to be met with an
automatic denial, if the solution is found not to be in accordance with "local"
research trends. For instance, one of these trends is the idea that "the Bible
is a myth".

This is in particular the
case within Egyptology and Theology - if not in general then at present among
dominant research schools where the mentioned trends' often less well-reflected,
so-called reality images are meticulously maintained and upheld although being
radically ill reputed for a long time due to abundant, new material and its new
perspectives.
In this way a lot of new
data from different scientific areas have been rejected, for instance, also more
exact data about a better determination of time for one of the most important
Egyptian periods (i.e. the 18th and 19th dynasties).
Likewise, it is rejected
that John Garstang's archaeological excavation of Jericho - published in 1940 -
contains important indications as these are even corresponding in minute detail
to the biblical narrative about the actions of the Israelites at this city.
Poorly informed critics, in fact, should criticize their own steps when placing
themselves as targets for present day lack of history.
The rejection of the
biblical information is maintained by the influential academic schools, although
Garstang's results are confirmed multiple, for instance by modern ceramic dating
methods (e.g. by John J. Bimson, 1991), and have never been proved wrong, but
have been hidden conveniently. The selection of this kind of material of the
book-series on Moses has also been disputed for being too "one-sided", which is
curious because so many of these important sources in particularly are not at
all to be observed as forming a part of the same critics' own foundations and
texts.

It is unscientifically to
claim automatically the less transparent ancient stories as being myths and then
continue a work from this unproven basis. Consider again what philosopher of
science Karl Popper says about it: "... Science must begin with myths and with
the criticism of myths ..." (1963). This applies as the agreed basis, but also
taken literally - as in the present case: Thus it is scientifically untenable
approach that without critical communication and without taking responsibility
now to just turn their backs to their own claims about historical materials as
being unsustainable myths.

From Antiquity a
comprehensive number of sources are known (for instance the ancient writers and
the early Rabbinical text-collections), which in connection with the material
arriving from especially modern archaeology have necessitated a new evaluation
of Moses as a historical figure with a long-range influence on posterity. If we
will open to this knowledge and new orientation we shall be able to better
understand many circumstances in our history as being also a background for our
present culture and standards..

Ove von Spaeth
- (updated 2014)

Bibliography

Bimson, John J.: Merneptah's Israel and Recent Theories of
Israelite Origins, JSOT (Journal for Study of The Old Testament,
Sheffield), 49, 1991, pp.20-23.

A special treasure of knowledge and wisdom
of Greece, Rome, and the Renaissance had originated in Ancient Egypt -
and was here known to connect also with the historical Moses' dramatic
fate and mystery.
Ove von Spaeth has
written an intriguing, new-orientating work presenting this still
influential background of our civilization. • His interdisciplinary
research on history, archaeology, and anthropology goes deeply into
Egyptian tradition, history of religion, initiation cults, star-knowledge,
and mythology - relating to biblical studies, the Rabbinical Writings,
and the authors of Antiquity. • Each volume offers unique insights not
presented before.
Special information is
presented by clicking on the individual cover illustrations: